Well it's the only case of someone melting stone that i have witnessed Magnus, so in that sense yes such siddhis do exist! Those other guys putting hands in rocks etc. would be unable of such a sublime feat as TUR accomplished.

Malcolm wrote:As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.

M

A couple or three millennia ago, the flat earth was regarded as a fact. A few hundred years ago, the heavens were thought to be geocentric rather than heliocentric. Those things that we view as self-evident today may be considered quaint 400 years from now and unrecognizable 2000 years from now.

So why be emphatic about what is possible and close off what is not based on one's own current world view? I would rather keep a sense of wonder and possibility than try to be some sort of hard-boiled denizen of modernity puffed up with the conceit of purported progress. I would rather regard life as a riot of paradoxes and fables than as a scorched earth of foolish consistency.

Tsongkhapafan wrote:So trying to practise what the Buddha taught is now fundamentalism? If people believe this to be the case, 'Buddhism' is in a mess. The problem these days is a general lack of faith and wisdom and watering Buddhism down with science and New Age philosophies.

Regarding Scientology, if their methods did lead to good results that would be great. It's for the individual to judge that for themselves - the proof of the pudding is always in the eating.

Malcolm wrote:As I said, they are fun stories, but in the end the real siddhis are the human qualities of compassion,love and awakening: in other words, the things that make us more human, not superhuman. Apart from the supreme siddhi, the other siddhis are just parlor tricks, even if they are true.

M

A couple or three millennia ago, the flat earth was regarded as a fact. A few hundred years ago, the heavens were thought to be geocentric rather than heliocentric. Those things that we view as self-evident today may be considered quaint 400 years from now and unrecognizable 2000 years from now.

So why be emphatic about what is possible and close off what is not based on one's own current world view? I would rather keep a sense of wonder and possibility than try to be some sort of hard-boiled denizen of modernity puffed up with the conceit of purported progress. I would rather regard life as a riot of paradoxes and fables than as a scorched earth of foolish consistency.

I am quite sure in 2000 years humans, if we still exist, will still discover the earth revolves around the sun, and not other way around.

For instance, a common fact that no one in any culture has ever rejected is that there is a sun and a moon. One sun, one moon. Not two, not three. Why do you think that is? Everyone understands that there are two human, biologically determined genders, not three, not four.

There are certain basic facts of our existence which are constant. Those facts are explained better today then they were 2000 years ago. Why fight it with fantasies about continents that only siddhas can fly to and so on? To insist there is a shred of truth in abhidharma meru cosmology, for example, is extremely immature. It is exactly at the same level of thinking as biblical creationism.

Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.

Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Malcolm wrote:Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.

Nobody of your ilk perhaps, but plenty of us mere humans. Yet again you are coming off as if you believe your viewpoint is the only sensible, mature one and everyone else is simply wrong. Frankly, I find you a lot more dogmatic about your opinions than these so-called fundamentalists you are railing against. I'll stick with what I have been taught by a realized master over the opinions of a scholar, no matter how eloquently stated or forcefully argued.

Malcolm wrote:Quite frankly, if Buddhists continue to entertain such naive beliefs, no one will take Buddhism seriously. Basically folks, this is Buddhism's Galileo moment.

Nobody of your ilk perhaps, but plenty of us mere humans. Yet again you are coming off as if you believe your viewpoint is the only sensible, mature one and everyone else is simply wrong. Frankly, I find you a lot more dogmatic about your opinions than these so-called fundamentalists you are railing against. I'll stick with what I have been taught by a realized master over the opinions of a scholar, no matter how eloquently stated or forcefully argued.

Its not dogma. When you can show me a cosmic mountain in the middle of space somewhere, or even a human being who can fly unaided through the mere power of their will, then there is something discuss. Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined the world community in 1959.

Secondly, a person may be realized about the nature of their minds, utterly free of affliction, and may still be completely mistaken about all kinds of things. Realization does not equal omniscience.

Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Malcolm wrote:Its not dogma. When you can show me a cosmic mountain in the middle of space somewhere, or even a human being who can fly unaided through the mere power of their will, then there is something discuss. Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Preach it, brother. If there is one thing that is constant in your ever-evolving ideas, it is how emphatic you are that you are right.

Malcolm wrote:Things like Meru, which might even have been reasonable inferences once upon a time have stopped being so once Tibetan buddhism joined the world community in 1959.

Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.

Malcolm wrote: We can, if we so choose, accept these myths and legends as literally true, but to insist to others that they must accept these as literal facts is fundamentalism.

Yes, this is a very important point.When people assert that these events are "real"what they are actually implying is, "they are real, just as real as I am real"as if refuting the illusory nature of our experience.

Instead, it would be more accurate, perhapsto say "these things are fabrications of the mind, just as "I" (the 'self' that I take as real) am also a fabrication of the mind....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Those mythological flying palaces were really spaceships. I don't know if all the fancy show in the ancient myth and lore are real. I am keeping an open mind about the whole thing. But I can't help laughing when I watch ancient aliens TV show on this history channel and they go on and on about the Vimanas

Vimanashair.jpg

Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living

Malcolm wrote:...a person may be realized about the nature of their minds, utterly free of affliction, and may still be completely mistaken about all kinds of things. Realization does not equal omniscience.

Indeed, and Thank you very much for your clarity and insight, as well as your efforts to illuminate a seemingly thorny issue. Your posts make visiting here worthwhile.

Unquestionably, Buddha Shakyamuni discovered and elucidated some very profound matters in regard to mind and behavior, but the understanding of the mechanics of the universe (as evidenced by the texts) is a product of story-telling, and bears little relationship to how things actually work. The same can be said of the many sages who followed him, which reiterates your point that realization, awakening, liberation, etc. are more properly in the domain of freedom from the afflictions, and do not grant some kind of cosmic knowledge about the universal manifestation and its intricacies.

The human mind, no matter how illumined it may become regarding its own nature, is incapable of comprehending the greater universe in which it appears, and so creates stories in order to provide some sense of temporary security in the midst of the vast unknown (which is the essence of the religious motive, after all). Some of these stories we recognize as myths, and some we call "science", though fundamentally they are all creations, and not unlike the primitives who gazed out at the night sky, filled with stars, and fabricated tales with which to pacify the tribe.

In a few centuries, once we venture out into the solar system in a significant fashion, we will (hopefully) still be able to appreciate the truths of suffering and its relief, as analyzed by Gautama, but will undoubtedly regard the religious beliefs regarding the mechanics of the cosmos of today's fundamentalists as quaint artifacts of the dark ages.

Malcolm wrote:Meru is not presented as a visionary model in any Buddhist text It is presented by Vasubandhu as empirical fact. Since that cosmology does not conform to what is universally accessible empirical knowledge, it is relic of another time and another culture that no longer can be entertained as true.

You seem to accept rebirth. Is that based on universally accessible empirical knowledge?

"Thus, one should investigate [if a teacher]Has the knowledge of what should be practiced.Whether he knows the number of insectsIs not of any use to us.

We seek one who is valid, Knowing what to adopt and discardAs well as the method to do so, Not one who knows everything.

Whether or not he can see what is distant, He should see the reality we seek. If seeing what is distant makes one validThen we should honor vultures here."-- Dharmakirti

"These sizes, distances, and so forth are flatly contradicted by the empirical evidence of modern astronomy. There is a dictum in Buddhist philosophy that to uphold a tenet that contradicts reason is to undermine one's credibility; to contradict empirical evidence is still a greater fallacy. So it is hard to take the Abhidharma cosmology literally. Indeed, even without recourse to modern science, there is a sufficient range of contradictory models for cosmology within Buddhist thought for one to question the literal truth of any particular version. My own view is that Buddhism must abandon many aspects of the Abhidharma cosmology. To what extend Vasubandhu himself believed in Abhidharma worleview is open to question. He was presenting systematically the variety of cosmological speculations that were then current in India. Strictly speaking, the description of the cosmos and its origins - which the Buddhist texts refer to as the "container" - is secondary to the account of the nature and origins of sentient beings, who are "contained". -- His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Malcolm wrote: We can, if we so choose, accept these myths and legends as literally true, but to insist to others that they must accept these as literal facts is fundamentalism.

Yes, this is a very important point.When people assert that these events are "real"what they are actually implying is, "they are real, just as real as I am real"as if refuting the illusory nature of our experience.

Instead, it would be more accurate, perhapsto say "these things are fabrications of the mind, just as "I" (the 'self' I take as real) am also a fabrication of the mind....

Malcolm wrote:Otherwise all this crap about meru, siddhis, magic powers and so on is just useless prapanca people are entertaining themselves with Because they have nothing better to put their minds to.

Yeah, probably! ...but is the hungry ghost realm any more real than the human realm?...is Manjusri any more real than you or I?...

Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.